Science desk
< May 3	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 4

Immoplex glandular

There's a nutritional supplement called Immoplex Glandular. I can find a lot of sites online that sell it but I can't get anything to tell me exactly what it is. Searching for immoplex here doesn't find anything. So can someone tell me what it is? I'm just looking for what this is. I'm not seeking medical advice. So please don't hat this question. Dismas|^(talk) 01:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snake oil? According to that article it "has come to refer to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit." That seems to fit here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a reference for your guess? Dismas|^(talk) 01:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That you question, and are unable to verify, it's quality or benefit, would seem to indicate it is of "questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit". StuRat (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, FFS! I just asked what it is. HiLo suggested that it's snake oil and I asked for a reference for that, thinking that it might also tell me what immoplex glandular is. Now you want to pick nits over snake oil claims. Just can someone tell me what it is? Dismas|^(talk) 02:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? "A mixture of glandulars, including adrenal, pancreas, thymus and spleen tissue. Our natural glandular material is derived from government-inspected, range-fed animals, raised in New Zealand and Australia, whose animal husbandry regulations are among the strictest in the world. The material is lyophilized, which means it is immediately frozen, then subjected to a high vacuum that vaporizes moisture directly from the solid state". [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, various glands that are chopped up and freeze-dried. Thank you! I've never seen glandular used as a noun like that before. Dismas|^(talk) 03:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, As someone from that presumably exotic sounding but safe source of food, Australia, I'd like to know more about those "government-inspected, range-fed animals". HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Lyophilized" just means it's freeze-dried.

So, how would those organ meats affect you ? I suppose if you managed to eat them in sufficient quantity they might give you gout. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why is it? Snake oil reasons? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat explained that above at 01:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC). HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but as your fellow Australian has made clear on another desk today, StuRat's answers are of questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit without sources. Not sure who to believe, anymore! Enough to drive a man to drink goat pineal. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I simply repeated and applied the definition of snake oil, and HiLo had already provided the link to verify that. As for the quality of my responses, judge for yourself, as taking somebody else's word for it is simply accepting an argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant by "not sure who to believe". Jack didn't cite jack in jacking your credibility. So maybe he didn't. You do seem to make good points, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Stu was effectively quoting an earlier post of mine, and I've never knowingly touched goat pineal. I do know that there are thousands of feral goats in western New South Wales currently being rounded up and sold on the export market. We don't want them. You can have them. As for those government inspectors, with the kinds of budget cuts our government is currently threatening us with, they will probably be a very rare breed themselves soon. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I have 17 allegedly domestic goats I need to round up everyday already. Stupid alleged barriers. And yeah, the quote was more effective than I may have let on. Good work, Stu! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite some colorful worries, goat pineal should contain some active compounds. :) Wnt (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though the living gland doesn't shoot its magic into the stomach first. That seems like it could complicate things. I think I'll just leave them in the goats, where they seem to be working fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, melatonin comes in pill bottles, and I doubt there's much magic involved there. Wnt (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Compared to granting a goat lucid dreams, its medicinal properties are pretty bland. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the OP, it is reasonably common in Western allopathic medicine to treat glandular deficiencies with mammalian glands or their extracts. For example, hypothyroidism was first treated by George Redmayne Murray in 1891 by feeding patients sheep thyroid, while beef or porcine insulin are still used to treat Type I diabetes (in the UK at least). So maybe not snake oil, then. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tammy! That was very helpful! Dismas|^(talk) 14:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the key word "deficiencies". If a person is indeed deficient in some nutrient, then nutritional supplements could help. However, most people aren't deficient, and therefore more of those nutrients wont help. (And if people eating a western diet are deficient in a nutrient, it's likely to be something we should be getting from vegetables, not meats.) StuRat (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between Supernova 1a and a Nova?

They sound like almost the same thing. ScienceApe (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A nova is when a white dwarf flares up and then goes back to the way it was -- a supernova destroys the star. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A nova can occur with a star of any size over a certain limit toward the end of its life. An S1a occurs when two stars in close orbit interact, with a white dwarf, near the nova threshold, siphons gas from its larger main sequence or red giant neighbor. Since the white dwarf is just under the set limit for a nova, it will explode justa as it meets that mass limit from accreted gas, meaning the S1a's will always explode with the same energy and brightness, allowing us to tell their distance by their relative brightness. μηδείς (talk)

May been it different in a moving orbits?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is that a Nova is a temporary flare of hydrogen fusion on the surface of a white dwarf, while a Type Ia supernova occurs if, due to the accumulation of extra mass on the surface, the core reaches critical conditions and explodes due to large-scale carbon (and oxygen) fusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So then wouldn't it stand to reason that a Type Ia supernova should undergo nova before it goes supernova in the case of a white dwarf? ScienceApe (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the mass accretion is fast enough and/or the white dwarf was already close to the Chandra limit to begin with. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it been a electromagnetic induction?

Is it been a electromagnetic induction is beening a natural life of the World?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "a natural life of the World", but does the Russian article Электромагнитная индукция or the English article Electromagnetic induction help? Red Act (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I been mean, that a electromagnetic induction always been safe a life of the Nature of the World because a electromagnetic induction always been a elementary structure of all natural life of the World.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is natural does not mean that it is safe. Natural electric phenomena include lightning, and geomagnetic stormss. These two can cause strong radio waves with electromagnetic induction. The electric eel can use electricity to damage its prey. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ofcourse a electromagnetic induction is been not safely. I been want to add, that a biological cells always been grow up and divide after a electromagnetic induction to been done it.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic induction does not normally affect living cells -- what are you talking about? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is been not safely. A metabolism of a biological cells always been done by a electromagnetic induction.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In itself a biological cells always been a material of a active inductions protoplasm.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A biological cells always been haven a electromagnetic potential.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you hook wires to a dead frog, yes, it will dance. And if you charge money to see it, yes, people will pay. Maybe not a lot of people. But the electromagnetic revolution is been has potential to shock the world. Capiche? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why been not, if a biological cells always been haven a elementary electric charge, in according that a biological cells always been haven a electromagnetic potential, it is been done always really.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A electric always been done a diffusion of all biological cells!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May been a electromagnetic potential of a biological cells could been program a biological cells for growing up.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it been in a science that a biological factor been a technical factor?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific publishing/communication and language

Is sharing of science not hindered by articles being published in a variety of languages? Won't work be slower because some don't realise that work has already been done and published in, say, French? --129.215.47.59 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of scientific journals are in English. Even journals that used to be non-English like Annalen der Physik are now English-only. Mr.Z-man 16:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major scientific studies are sure to be translated into all the major languages. However, obscure studies may not be, and that could, indeed, result in duplication of effort. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my employment as a reseach and development engineer, 95% of journal articles I've needed to consult were in journals published in English speaking countries. Until the recent advancement of China, the bulk of original research has originated in the USA, with small amounts comming from Canada, Britain, and Europe. Some important fundamental stuff (in combustion chemistry, & physical constants for properties of materials, at least) was done in the Soviet Union, but they made a point in publishing high quality English translations, as trying to prove that Communism was great was an aim. The other 5% I've had to consult, not available in English, was written in French or German. These are not difficult languages to translate, particularly, for me, German. Since it often takes a few hours for me to understand fully a typical article, and extra hour or so to translate it myself is not significant. Japanese is a very difficult language, but not a lot of original research happens in Japan, and they like to publish in American journals anyway. China is fast rising in the volume published in English language journals. I don't know if they publish much exclusively in Chinese language journals.

I imagine the experience of others is similar. What I hate is old articles using non-SI units - conversion is frought with error.

StuRat has no idea what he is talking about. Perusal of almost any professional journal with show that just about any article has a comprehensive list of references included. Where original research was published in a non-English language, you will invariably find the non English papers listed. Pure research is often deliberately duplicated in various universities, in order to improve understanding and guard against error in experimental technique or conclusions (And, we must admit, sometimes because somebody just doesn't believe what he's read). So, the chances of a professional researcher being unaware of work done elsewhere is not at all great regardless of language(exceptions are sometimes said to occur where work has been classified for military defence reasons, e.e., nuclear munition design, but that is rare and pretty much pointless for most stuff).

The first thing you learn in university as an undergrad science or engineering student, right after you learn to give the professor what he wants (they all have their foibles and pecularities), when doing a project, is do or have done a good literature search. It's cheaper that way. Universities and companies involved in pure resarch and applied research have librarians skilled in hunting stuff down for you. If your company is too small to justify in-house libarians, you can hire a university or outside literature search organisation. That costs money, but you soon learn it's cheaper than doing the literature search yourself.

1.122.161.156 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of it makes sense, but where do you get the "Until the recent advancement of China, the bulk of original research has originated in the USA"? The US is a major science contributor, to be sure, and has always been on the forefront of commercialising results, but in both number of publications and impact, Western Europe and the US have been about equal. The rise of English as the lingua franca of science (and the world) has more to do with the fact that English language scientists formed the largest single block, and that most educated people in first-world countries learn English as a second language, anyways. I personally like English, and there is a large advantage in making research accessible to the largest number of people. But there are also people who support some weak version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, and think there is a risk that we lose certain ways of attacking a problem by communicating (and increasingly thinking) in just one language. I have some sympathy for that, too. German authors write differently than English language authors, and that brings a different perspective that can be valuable. For a related experience, just compare the same article in different language editions of Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See The World's Best Countries in Science - Scorecard, Scientific American, page 36 & 37, October 2012. This measured the effectiveness of applied research by tabling research papers, patents issued, and the number of science and engineering doctorate degrees issued. It makes it very clear that at that time, the output of the USA far outpaced all other countries. Patents, which are a very rough indicator of applied research / R&D output, were ranked as follows, all data scaled to make the USA score 100 points: USA 100, Germany 20.4, China 19.8, Japan 18.4, France 11.7, Canada 8.3. Other European countries, and my own country, Australia, had insignificant output. I recall that Scientific American had another look at it by comparing countries by the number of journal articles cited in other articles, which again showed the USA far outweighing other countries, with China fast catching up. What is sad is that the output from the Russian Federation is just about neglible, far below the output of even small countries with poor science & math education, like Australia. Russian output under the Soviet system was quite substantually greater. My own experience in R&D is that almost every new or important has arisen in the USA. The popular press in various countries can erroneously make it look different. For example, British publications tend to claim that the British invented computers. They made some contributions and went down some blind alleys, but the architecture of computers as we know them originated in the USA and Germany. Australian press likes to claim that Australia invented the instrument landing system. We did not. Some chap proposed that an ILS system be devised, but that is akin to me anouncing we should build low cost vehicle to go to mars. Musing means nothing.

I totally agree with you that thinking in another language, and working in a different culture too, can bring new & different insights. It's one of the reasons why some of the old Soviet research has turned out important. One has only to compare the the American psychiatric manual DSTM, used throughout the English speaking world to guide diagnosis and research, to publications from non-English speaking countries - one would think they must have people from another planet to work with. Perhaps we are the little green men. 1.122.97.123 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about patents (which, of course are an indicator of the commercial aspect), but for papers, Thomson Reuters seem to indicate otherwise. The US is the single biggest contributor, but Germany, Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland combined already beat it. If you go outside Western Europe, the combination of Japan, Canada, China, Australia, South Korea, India and Russia also is roughly on par. In my field, the US was a very strong pioneer, but in the last 15 years has yielded much of the field to Europe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English wasn't always so strongly the primary language for publishing papers. In the late 1960s when I completed a Science Degree at the University of Melbourne I had to satisfy the requirements of a "Science Language" study to get a degree. If I remember correctly, the choices at the time were German, Russian and French. Having studied French at high school I was allowed to sit a test which involved translating a couple of shortish texts with the help of a French-English dictionary. Others had to do a one-semester course. Some time between then and now that requirement was dropped. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RNAses in tissue culture

Do animal cells in culture produce RNAses that might impair lipofection with mRNA? I'm thinking that with mRNA you're better of electroporating or else using plasmid. --129.215.47.59 (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help identifying a bee/wasp

Today I have found a group of bees (or wasps, I'm not sure) nesting in the ground under my shed. This is a photograph of one of them (the holes to the right of the picture are the entrance/exit of the nest). Could anybody tell me what they are, and what action I should take? (I'd prefer to leave them in peace, but they are very close to the house and I have inquisitive little children). I'm in England, if that helps. Thanks in advance! — sparklism ^hey! 16:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some type of bee, to me. I don't see the narrow waist most wasps have. I even think I see full pollen sacs on it's leg, so it looks like it's been busy gathering food/pollinating flowers. Since you don't have Africanized honey bees there, your kids should be reasonably safe, since a bee does die when it stings, so is reluctant to do so. One danger, however, would be if your kids step on the nest in bare feet. You might want to encourage them to wear shoes and maybe put up a little temporary fence around the nest. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I don’t know, but may been a genome-modify. As for me, I’m always been beware of a geno or a genome modifications. Please, be carefully of it.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given the location and the nice heavy pollen load, it's a standard european honey bee. So long as your kids are old enough to understand the danger and mature enough not to yield to temptation, and you don't have vulnerable pets I'd let them bee. Seeing if you can get an epi-pen and warning those who enter your yard (or their guardians) would be a good idea. You might call whatever they call town halls where you live and see if there are any requirements you seek their removal. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I been read a something in which been said, that all insects always are been a modify genome because it they always are been much in a birthley.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's apis melifera, as Medeis suggests. For one thing, A. melifera don't dig holes in the ground, they nest in pre-existing cavities, e.g. in trees. See Beehive, which says "Western honey bees show several nest-site preferences: the height above ground is usually between 1 metre (3.3 ft) and 5 metres" This site [2] from the FAO also agrees: "A. mellifera [nest in] caves, rock cavities and hollow trees"

A key question: are there several holes in the ground? If so, I suggest that it is an aggregation of solitary bees. Some Halictidae are quasi-social, and share one main entrance hole, with each female laying her own eggs in her own "apartments". I agree that they can probably be safely ignored, as long as they a shown a little respect they will likely not be aggressive. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One concern would be if any of your kids are allergic to beestings. I think there's an allergy test for that, so you might consider having that done. StuRat (talk)

I think that you will find these are Mining bees see: [3]. Richerman (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sparklism made no indication that the bees were excavating a nest in the soil, he said on the ground, under a shed. Given he said bees I assumed there was some quantity, not solitary nest diggers. μηδείς (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture surely seems to suggest a nest completely consistent with mining bees, between the entrances and the soil composition, and there's no indication that the shed itself is being used as support for the den in the the photo itself. As has been pointed out above, some species of solitary bee are known to be quasi-social and to build nests with communal entrances. I have no knowledge of how common the behaviour is in Andrenidae, but, without having a much higher resolution image, I'm going to say Andrena looks to be rather our suspect based on purely external physical taxonomy. Snow talk 01:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows clear excavation, to me. To clarify, so-called "solitary" bees often aggregate in large numbers, in the dozens to hundreds at least, and thousands are not uncommon. This page [4] claims that "The largest recorded aggregation is 423,000 female bees in an area of 1300 m2". "Solitary" here refers to the social structure and division of labor and reproduction, it doesn't mean they nest in isolation from conspecifics. I didn't realize that "solitary bee" was a redirect to "bee"; that's unfortunate. The main point is A. Mellifera doesn't dig, so the photo sort of rules them out. The Andrenidae that are suggested below are indeed solitary, and look to the casual observer much like a common honey bee. I now put my vote in for Adrenidae spp. SemanticMantis (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll concede the point given the holes at the top right f the picture. I was only looking at the be herself. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich has the right of it on this one, I dare say. Location, hive structure and, most tellingly, morphology, all match.. I would add to this discussion only that we should be careful about being too laissez-faire about the danger implicit in their location in the OP's yard. Most species of Andrena may be no more aggressive than most bees of this size if not provoked, but then children are known to provoke. I usually preach efforts at co-existence with most all the little buggers out there, who fascinate me no end, and in this day and age in particular, it is a shame to kill or disrupt any industrious pollinators, but the OP must do what is wisest for their family, which may include calling a "pest" expert. Though there can be little doubt what their recommendation will be. Snow talk 00:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some great responses guys - thanks! I now think they are Mining bees; Richerman's link is very useful. There are indeed several holes where earth has definitely been excavated: I counted eight holes, all roughly in a line across about a metre of ground. Not sure what I'm going to do about them yet - I really want to leave them alone, but they are very close to my house (which is a shame - we have such a huge garden) and I don't want my little ones getting stung. — sparklism ^hey! 06:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your local wildlife trust, or an organization such as The Bumble Conservation Trust may be able to help you with both identification and appropriate action. DuncanHill (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Science memes

For you interest: the paper on "science memes" has been getting some traction in news and social media today. I've made a list of the "memes" listed in the article that do not currently have articles here; User:Impsswoon/Science memes. -- Impsswoon (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good list of articles most if not all of which probably ought to be created. However, the science reference desk probably isn't the best place to bring that list to the attention of the editors of science articles, since the reference desk is really just for answering reference questions. Since those missing articles appear to all be in the fields of physics and chemistry, I think probably the best two places to bring this to the attention of appropriate sets of editors would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Red Act (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles only exist if people like you and I write them. So if you have any knowledge on these subjects, just start writing. Before your article get to more than a paragraph or two, you should start thinking about finding references for the things you're saying - but if these are truly "memes" then that shouldn't be a problem. But Red Act is also correct - you can always request an article at the appropriate WikiProject...although, since those are all volunteer efforts too - there is no guarantee. SteveBaker (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:Requested articles would be another avenue to consider. Red Act (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamest, most docile pet?

Is there a way to determine which is the most docile pet (traditional ones, e.g. dogs, cats, horses, excluding exotic ones), loving kids, and less likely to harm anyone?--Carnby (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pet rock shouldn't bite. More on the living side, a painted turtle is pretty mellow. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. First, how do they react when they see you ? Do they growl and hiss, run and hide, or come up to be petted ? Then you can have somebody make a loud noise in the room and see how they react to that. And, if you have other pets in the household, or may want to, watch how they react to other animals, too. And when they pass all the other tests, have them meet your kids. (I leave that for last, in case your kids fall in love with them, only to find out they are unsuitable.)

A pet which has been raised with kids is more likely to be tolerant of them. However, if your kids are too small to know the basics, like "don't pull it's tail", then maybe stick with a fish, until they get older.

Personally, for safety, I choose pets that can't hurt me much, even if they want to, like cats. Having a pet that can kill you if it gets angry seems seriously unwise to me. My brother had a great dane, that turned on him and got his jaw around my brother's head, putting teeth marks on both side. His skull almost cracked. That dog was put down after that.

And remember there are other important aspects to a good pet, like if they are house-trained, if they are high energy pets needing constant play, or if they are old and/or sedentary, and if they have any medical conditions. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested only in land animals? Goldfish would probably count as a traditional pet, but it's less likely than anything else you mention to do anything to you at all. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A sheep probably - they don't bite. Not great pets though. Maybe a Budgie - they do bite, but while it hurts it can't do any damage. Ariel. (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep do bite. Had four as a kid, and two often bit me. And headbutted me, while making scary sounds. The other two, never. It's nothing to worry about, compared to scraping a knee, but maybe not good for a fragile child. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a pet lamb? They're docile and, subsequently, delicious. RomanSpa (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The boy with the pet sheep in me is disgusted, but the man literally LOLed. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

The animal that has been domesticated longest is the dog. No other species can match its history of interaction with humans. Although they vary from breed to breed, they are generally more biddable and friendly to humans than any other species, and have better skills at reading human emotions than other species. So long as you select an appropriate breed you are unlikely to find a gentler or friendlier animal. RomanSpa (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: inform yourself beforehand about the specific breed, pick the right breed, pick a pet with a personality that you like, pick it young, educate him to shape his behaviour. Nowadays there are lots of information on Internet, just spend a few evenings browsing. You even have specialized TV shows. The local book shop will happily sell you a dozen books on the topic. The key is informing yourself before buying anything and getting stuck with the wrong type of pet.

Small dogs will be a lot safer than big ones. Getting bitten by a smallish dog is inconvenient and can leave scars, but it should never be life-threatening. Schnauzer dogs are very loyal and should be kid-safe, and they come in small size. Husky dogs are medium-sized, but they are very coward, they should be quite docile and kid-safe. Always check the characteristics of a breed before choosing a dog. Be wary of which experts you listen to, some people will insist that all dogs are kid-safe, other experts might not warn about all the negative characteristics. Some breeds are much safer than other. Some breeds show high tolerance for rough games with kids. Of course, every dog will have its own personality, but picking a "kid-safe" breed is an important first step.

Check Guinea_pig#Pets, they are coward and really safe, be sure to pick a short-haired one for hygiene. Hamsters can be made docile, but they have this tendency to confuse you finger with food, and they have other inconvenience.

Cats are very docile if you pick them at very young age, feed them by hand, and make sure to play with them a lot of time every day when they are young. Idem for dogs. In general, if you pick them young, and your kid plays with them since a very young age, they will get used to almost anything. (I remember a kid who dragged his cat by the tail through the street; the cat protested in loud voice but never scratched him.) Be sure to reward him for behaviour you want to encourage, and scold him for behaviour you don't want him to display. Make the rewarding and scolding as soon as the behaviour appears for the first time. Buy guides on educating cats and follow them! By personal experience, I know that this applies to cats, dogs, budgies and guinea pigs. Don't know about other pets.

For all animals, always insist on examining several exemplars before choosing, together if possible. Pick them as young as possible. Look at their behaviours and how do they react when you approach your hand. Each one will have its own personality! Do you want a playful one? Do you really want the one that won't stop moving all the time? Do you prefer one that will try to sleep all day? To pick the most docile one, look for the ones that are less active than the others, won't resist being touched, and won't resist being handled. Don't pick the first animal you are offered, unless you know the person and they can guarantee that it has the type of personality that you are looking for.

Adult dogs give problems if they change owners, other pets might not have this problem.

Of course, this will be useless if you can't educate your pet to behave. Watch Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan for educating dogs correctly. Buy a guide for your type of pet. For dogs/cats/horses, try to get breed-specific advice.

There are lots of information in the internets about types of pets, breeds, etc. People in specialized discussion forums might help you or tell you about specialized resources. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labradors, Golden retrievers and many other medium or large breeds are child friendly. However common sense (and experience) suggests that you choose a dog only if your family dynamic is right - very small children will need supervision. And I would disagree with Enric both on small dogs, and very strongly on Huskies as a family pet. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC).

Agreed. The most common pets are the most popular for a reason. Ginger-colored short haired cats, Labrador dogs and Goldfish are the commonest pets - and that's because they make good pets. Exotic and unusual pets are exotic and unusual for a good reason. But even picking a "safe" bet like that doesn't mean it's automatically safe. Dogs have to be reared properly around the family - handled often and gently while they are young and brought in as a part of the family. Even the most docile of dog breeds can be a vicious nightmare if you tie it up in the backyard for days at a time. SteveBaker (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do people kill more often in their families or outside?

Hi there,

My wife is an avid novel reader. In the novels she reads it is emphasized that people kill more often inside their families. She therefore asked me for a psychological explanation of the phenomenon. The question caught me off guard. I've never thought of this and I am not sure if this assertion is correct to begin with.

What do you think?

Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's "common knowledge" that "Most victims are murdered by someone they know", but I don't think that takes into account all the unsolved ones. Most murders (at least in the US) are unsolved, largely because there wasn't an obvious suspect. It's common enough for the husband to be arrested for someone else's murder, simply because it's "common knowledge" that husbands murder wives and swear they didn't.

So the numbers are a bit skewed, whichever answer you get.

For the third time in recent days, a recent Cracked article partially backs me up. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be something in victimology for you. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the psychology behind why many people are murdered by family, there are stronger emotions shared by close people than by strangers. All the seven deadly sins go into overdrive during affairs, divorces, regular spats about dishes. And people let their guard down around those who already live in the house, without witnesses, so it's a very conducive situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be so much psychological as a geographic/temporal phenomenon. Statistically, if if an individual shoots someone, that is not a member of s/his family, it usually means s/he has taken their gun out of their home and gone round to commit a premeditate homicide. This takes time, during which, the gun holder can reconsider s/his motives. As every football player knows, s/he is no longer playing on home ground in this scenario. However, in the family home, an argument can start and before brain-has-been-able-to-engage-finger, the fatal shot has been fired.--Aspro (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"For the first time, statistics show you are more likely to be murdered by a stranger than somebody you know. My advice, then, is to introduce yourself to everyone you meet." - Saturday Night Live. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Aye, the setting differences change the killers' psyches. All part of the same package, not an "or" thing. Space drives the getaway car, time offers a safehouse, but it's always some lousy brain pulling the trigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recently watched a TV show featuring a forensic psychologist (or similar law enforcement professional), who made the observation that when a criminal preys on someone they know, it's basically an indication of a lack of criminal sophistication. Like picking an easy target because they happen to be handy and convenient. Minus a powerful emotional trigger like jealousy or revenge, this could be the reason a murderer or other criminal might target a relative or acquaintance. Geographic profiling shows that criminals are also more likely to target victims geographically close to them.OttawaAC (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think some responders here have been a little quick to validate this old chestnut without bothering to support, or contextualize, that position with approrpiate sourcing/validation. Point in fact, the OP is quite right to question whether or not this rule of thumb is correct. For one thing, there is the confounding factor that many forms of killing which can be unambiguously labelled murder nonetheless fall into conceptual categories that we aren't necessarily thinking of, first and foremost when we consider murder in the context of violent crime (be it a crime of passion or a consequence of other criminal activities). Is a man killed in a race riot the victim of murder? I dare say so. How about one killed in a terrorist attack? I'm sure most of us would say yes. There are many other such examples, though admittedly, not all of them are as common in the developed western world as elsewhere, and the OP may have been intending the question to be considered narrowly within the context of such nations and of crimes of passion vs. conventional violent crime for profit, excluding ethnic, political, and militant contexts as well as accidental (but faultable) killings. However, even within these narrower contexts, there is still considerable question as to whether a person is more likely to be killed by someone they know. There are many vagueries at work, including but not at all limited to 1) the unknown facts in a great many murders 2) the fact that statistics are held and analyzed by disparate agencies and researchers with different standards and perspectives and 3) the inherent subjectivity of some assesments -- a man goes to a meth dealer, who he's run into on the street before, but something goes wrong and the buyer ends up dead -- did he "know" his killer? Specific statistics have been bandied about purporting that a person is more likely to be shot in the United States by someone they know, but of course not all shootings are fatal, nor are all fatal shootings murder.

Getting to the heart of OP's question about the psychology at work, there are a number of different factors at play. Several have already pointed to the fact that many murders are crimes of passion and that both premeditated and spontaneous killings of this sort are likely to involve a person they have strong feelings for. What these arguments don't take into account is that a situation can involve a person (or circumstances) which cause violent impulses associated with a person the attacker is close to, without that person being the target of the violence (as with a jealous lover or a revenge killing) and it's hard, without statistical evidence or research of some sort to take it for granted that these are less common than the familial individual becoming the target. There is also a substantial and well-recognized aspect of the psychology of violence which works counter to close family members becoming victims. Specifically, many experts in the cognitive, psychological, and social sciences have noted that it is easier to commit violence against another when the victim can be conceived of as fundamentally different and of another category of person from the attacker, or not at a person at all -- that is to say, when they are The Other. There is a complex hierarchy of "otherness" that has been observed across cultures where violence is considered increasingly unacceptable when directed against (in reverse order) those of the same regional or cultural identity, those of the local community, the broad kin group, the extended family, immediate family, and, generally least acceptable of all, offspring -- though there is evidence that in the contemporary world, where we increasingly interact with people from far away and from drastically different cultures, our circles of inclusion for "us" (as opposed to "them") are getting broader, contributing to a general decrease in violence where people are reduced to "not-quite-human" or at least not quite the same and thus valid candidates for violence that would not be applied to someone more similar. But it is generally agreed by a great number of experts that there is an innate, genetic, propensity to avoid violence against kin. So if we are in fact today a tendency for more murders to be committed by someone who shares a familial association with the victim, then it is arguably because murder is generally less socially acceptable today, and carries greater risks associated with the immediate community than it often did in the past (and certainly in the prehistorical context in which the majority of the evolution of our psychology took place), but that some still cross that line under certain emotional circumstances personal relationships can engender and it is thus that the historical trend has been flipped (if it in fact it has).

There's a lot of good material out there for the psychology of murder, but much of it focuses some subset of killing or another. I think in looking at this particular question, a broader approach might serve. There's an excellent book written by cognitive scientist Steven Pinker titled The Better Angels of Our Nature in which he presents the case that we are currently living in a period of time that is, statistically and to an extent culturally, the least violent in all of human history (and presumably prehistory as well) and that a general decline in violence has been under way for a long time, much as we impressionistically often feel things are only getting worse; he looks at killing and other forms of violence in a wide swath of contexts and across the historical record, examining the psychological elements that drive violence and those which restrain it and trying to determine what has led to this slow decline. If I may suggest, you and your wife might find it a fascinating read. Snow talk 01:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my wont to always thank people who post answers/comments to my questions, this time is no exception. My wife will read them all tomorrow. I've already shown her the volume of the knowledge she will have to digest. Personally I like StuRat's humorous quotation most. Many thanks. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]